Arabs Want Redistribution, So Why Don’t They Vote Left? Theory and Evidence from Egypt Faculty Research Working Paper Series Tarek Masoud Harvard Kennedy School April 2013 RWP13-007 Visit the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper series at: http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications The views expressed in the HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or of Harvard University. Faculty Research Working Papers have not undergone formal review and approval. Such papers are included in this series to elicit feedback and to encourage debate on important public policy challenges. Copyright belongs to the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. www.hks.harvard.edu Arabs want redistribution, so why don’t they vote left? Theory and evidence from Egypt Tarek Masoud∗ Abstract Though Egyptian voters clearly evince a desire for Islamic law (however defined), public opinion research shows that they also want robust welfare states and significant redistri- bution. Though the application of Islamic law is the special province of Islamist parties, it is left-leaning, labor-based parties who are the primary champions of the economic poli- cies that Egyptians seem to desire. Why, then, do Egyptian voters select the former over the latter? This article argues that the answer lies not in the political unsophistication of voters, the subordination of economic interests to spiritual ones, or the bureaucratic and organizational shortcomings of leftist parties, but in the ways in which the social landscape shapes the opportunities of parties in newly democratized systems to reach potential vot- ers. Dense networks of religious solidary organizations, in which Islamist activists are often embedded, and which encompass large numbers of voters, provide Islamist parties with opportunities for linkage that are unavailable to leftists, who are embedded in much more limited networks of labor activism. As a result, despite the fact that Islamist atti- tudes toward redistribution and the state’s role in providing welfare are more ambiguous than those of leftists, Islamist candidates have far greater opportunities to convince voters that they in fact share their economic views. The theory is tested with a combination of aggregate and individual evidence from Egypt after the Arab Spring. 1 The Islamist Arrival The two years since the overthrow of Egypt’s long-reigning dictator, Husni Mubarak, have not been kind to the forces of liberalism and secularism in that country. Though the mass protests that resulted in Mubarak’s departure seemed at first ∗Thanks to Ali Asani, Soha Bayoumi, David Dapice, Marshall Ganz, Sona Golder, Jill Golden- pine, Amaney Jamal, Amani Kandil, Victor Menaldo, Burt Monroe, Todd Mostak, Ahmed Ragab, Sara Roy, Burcin Tamer, Joseph Wright, Vineeta Yadav, and participants in the workshop on Civil Society in the Arab Region, Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study, Harvard University, February 7-8, 2013; the Al-Waleed Ibn Talal Islamic Studies Faculty Seminar, February 20, 2013; and the Penn- sylvania State University Conference on Political Change and the Arab Spring, February 23, 2013. All errors are mine. Comments welcome: [email protected]. 1 1TheIslamistArrival 2 to have been organized and led by liberal young people, the post-revolutionary period has seen an almost unbroken string of Islamist triumphs.1 First, in January 2012, two Islamist political parties, the Freedom and Justice Party (H. izb al-H. urriyah wa al-‘Adalah¯ )—the political arm of the 85-year old Society of Muslim Brothers (Jama¯‘at al-Ikhwan¯ al-Muslimun¯ )—and an even more conservative newcomer called the Party of Light (H. izb al-Nur¯ ), won more than two-thirds of the seats in par- liament (before the body was dissolved by the country’s highest court).2 In June 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi won the country’s presidency, and six months later, the Brotherhood and its allies enacted a constitution that secular opposition leader Mohamed ElBaradei decried as violating “freedom of religion, freedom of expression, [and] independence of the judiciary.”3 The eigh- teen days from January 25, 2011 to Mubarak’s resignation on February 11, in which the faces Egypt presented to the world were not those of bearded Islamists, but of liberals and socialists and Western-educated technocrats, seem distant indeed. For many, the political ascent of the partisans of political Islam was unsur- prising. Scholars, journalists, and even Mubarak himself had long predicted that democratic openings in Egypt would bring Islamists to power. In 2006, the scholar Fawaz Gerges declared that “if free and open elections were held today, the Broth- 1 In this essay, I define Islamist parties as those that arise out of Islamic pietist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood (Jama¯‘at al-Ikhwan¯ al-Muslimun¯ ) or the Salafi Call Society (Jama¯‘at al- Da‘wa al-Salafiyya). These parties invariably call for the application of some version of shar¯ı‘ah, but I refrain from using a stated desire for shar¯ı‘ah as a definitional criterion because Egyptian par- ties generally recognized as non-Islamist often pay lip-service to shar¯ı‘ah as well. For example, Islamic themes once figured prominently in the platform of Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party, which, according to Egyptian columnist Fahm¯ı Huwayd¯ı, called not only for the primacy of the shar¯ı‘ah, but for the strengthening of religious education and the use of state-owned media for the reinforcement of religious principles and values. See: Fahm¯ı Huwayd¯ı, “Misr . Al-Marja‘iyya¯ al-D¯ıniyya Bayn al-Hazr wa al-Tawz¯ıf (Egypt: The Religious Frame of Reference Between Prohibi- tion and Exploitation),” Al-Sharq al-Awsat, Issue 10347, 28 March, 2007. Similarly, the platform of Egypt’s Wafd party—long referred to as “secular,” “liberal,” or both—declares that, “Islam is the official religion of the state and therefore the Islamic shar¯ı‘a must be the principal source of legis- lation.” (See: Birnamij¯ H. izb al-Wafd: Al-Shu’un¯ al-D¯ıniyya (Wafd Party Platform: Religious Matters). Available at http://www.alwafdparty.org/details.aspx?t=prog&id=136.) An alternative, and use- ful, definition of Islamism is provided by Hegghammer (2013, 1), who calls it “activism justified with primary reference to Islam.” Although what constitutes “primary reference” is of course sub- jective. 2 Arabic terms and proper names have been transliterated according to the system established by the Middle East Studies Association (http://web.gc.cuny.edu/ijmes/docs/TransChart.pdf), ex- cept in cases where there is an established English rendering. (Thus, I write Gamal Abdel Nasser, Mohamed Morsi, and Mohamed ElBaradei instead of Jamal¯ ‘Abd al-Nas¯ .ir, Muh. ammad Murs¯ı, and Muh. ammad al-Barad‘¯ ¯ı.) 3 “ElBaradei: Egypt’s Draft Constitution Will Institutionalize Instability,” PBS NewsHour, De- cember 24, 2012. Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/egypt2_12- 24.html; For a thorough analysis of the new Egyptian constitution, see Nathan J. Brown, “Egypt’s Constitution Conundrum: The Good, Bad, and the Unruly in Cairo,” Foreign Af- fairs, December 9, 2012 (available at http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138495/nathan- j-brown/egypts-constitution-conundrum); and Nathan Brown and Clark Lombardi, “Is- lam in Egypt’s New Constitution,” Foreign Policy, December 13, 2012 (available at: http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/12/13/islam_in_egypts_new_constitution). 1TheIslamistArrival 3 erhood would win a comfortable majority.”4 That same year, the New York Times informed us that the Brothers “would probably sweep any wide-open elections.”5 Likewise, in 2007 an Israeli official testified that “if free elections were held in Egypt today, the Muslim Brotherhood would win by a landslide.”6 Hisham¯ Mubarak,¯ the late Egyptian human rights activist (and no relation to the former dictator), con- fided to Miller (1996, 65) that “if the Brotherhood ever ran in a free election, it would win overwhelmingly.” More restrained was the analysis of the Jerusalem Report more than twenty years ago, which ascribed to “many observers” the belief that, if the Brotherhood “ran free elections and was given free access to the me- dia, its supporters would take no more than 10 years to become the parliamentary majority.”7 The simplest explanation for the dominance of Islamists in post-revolutionary Egypt is that Islamists win because Muslims want what they are selling. Accord- ing to the historian Bernard Lewis, Muslims are taught that enforcing shar¯ı‘ah law (despite the lack of agreement on precisely what this requires) and Islamizing the polity are religious imperatives. “In Islam [...],” Lewis writes, “there is from the be- ginning an interpenetration, almost an identification, of cult and power, or religion and the state: Mohammed was not only a prophet, but a ruler” (Lewis 1996, 61). In contrast, he tells us, Christians “have distinguished between throne and altar, church and state.” This narrative is echoed by the political scientist James Q. Wil- son, who tells us: “Jesus asked Christians to distinguish between what belonged to God and what belonged to Caesar. Islam made no such distinction; to it, Allah prescribed the rules for all of life, encompassing what we now call the religious and secular spheres.”8 Conditioned by their faith to demand theocracy, this line of argument goes, Muslims cast their suffrages for parties that promise to impose God’s will on Earth. Such accounts have long been dismissed as essentializing (Said, 1978; al Azm, 1997), but they remain influential, in part because we continue to amass empirical evidence that seems to support them. In the periodic surveys of Egyptian public opinion that have been conducted over the last several years, one of the few em- pirical regularities that emerges is a popular desire for the application of shar¯ı‘ah (however construed), which is a principal plank in many an Islamist party’s plat- form.